SUPREME COURT UPDATES

Consumer Protection Act provides power to Fora under it to award Punitive Damages: Supreme Court

A. Power to award Compensation

The fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are quasi judicial bodies, required to observe the principles of Natural Justice and to award relief of a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. A forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act has the power to award punitive damages. Punitive damages should, however, be granted only in exceptional circumstances, where the action of the Financier is so reprehensible that punishment is warranted. To cite an example, where a Financier erroneously and/or wrongfully invokes the power to repossess without notice to the hirer, causing thereby extensive pecuniary loss to the hirer or loss of goodwill and repute, a forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act may award punitive damages.

B. Who is the real owner of  Vehicle?

The question raised by the Financier in this appeal, that is, whether the Financier is the real owner of the vehicle, which is the subject of a Hire Purchase Agreement, has to be answered in the affirmative in view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in Haranjit Singh Chadha (supra), K.L. Johar & Co.v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Coimbatore (AIR 1965 SC 1082) and Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma and Others (2013) 1 SCC 400). The Financier being the owner of the vehicle which is the subject of a Hire Purchase Agreement, there can be no impediment to the Financier taking possession of the vehicle when the hirer does not make payment of installments/hire charges in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement. However, such repossession cannot be taken by recourse to physical violence, assault and/or criminal intimidation. Nor can such possession be taken by engaging gangsters, goons and musclemen as so called Recovery Agents.

C. Whether the service of proper notice on the hirer would be necessary for repossession of a vehicle?

Whether the service of proper notice on the hirer would be necessary for repossession of a vehicle, which is the subject matter of a Hire Purchase Agreement, would depend on the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement, some of which may stand modified by the course of conduct of the parties. If the hire purchase agreement provides for notice on the hirer before repossession, such notice would be mandatory. Notice may also be necessary, if a requirement to give notice is implicit in the agreement from the course of conduct of the parties.

D.   Hire-purchase agreement

If the hirer commits breaches of the conditions of a hire purchase agreement which expressly provides for immediate repossession of a vehicle without further notice to the hirer, in case of default in payment of hire charges and/or hire installments repossession would not be vitiated for want of notice. In this case, however a duty to give notice to the Complainant before repossession, was implicit in the Hire Purchase Agreement. The Hire Purchase Agreement was a stereotype agreement in a standard form, prepared by the Financier. The same kind of agreements, containing, identical terms, except for minor modifications are executed by all hirers of vehicles, equipment, machinery and other goods, who enter into hire purchase agreements with the Financier. The Financier who set down the terms and conditions of the hire purchase, construed the hire purchase agreement to contain an implied term for service of notice and accordingly dispatched a notice, but did not address it to the correct address of the Complainant as given in the hire purchase agreement.

In a case where the requirement to serve notice before repossession is implicit in the hire purchase agreement, non service of proper notice would tantamount to deficiency of service for breach of the hire purchase agreement giving rise to a claim in damages. The Complainant consumer would be entitled to compensatory damages, based on an assessment of the loss caused to the complainant by reason of the omission to give notice. Where there is no evidence of any loss to the hirer by reason of omission to give notice, nominal damages may be awarded.

Photo by Dan Gold on Unsplash